My F 4 J nutjob ex demanded I didn;t give the kids his name (after originally demanding they had it as it would be 'racist' if I didn't - it's an Italian name. The man is a dick).
Luckily for me I let the kids use my name and his and slowly, over time, both of them have elected to drop his entirely. Not my choice - their's. So when he sent me an email with a lengthy lecture about not using his name, little did he know they both stopped using it years back.
I suspect it is to justify him not paying out for them - maybe convincing his newfound mates at church the kids aren't his since it came out he wasn't paying a penny for em... Either way he is a man and don't give a toss about his kids having his name.
I refused to take my husband's name, as I am not a dog or a slave. I don't get why women do it - it's pretty sad in this day and age that women should be so desperate to end their own identities but maybe it is a generational thing as I know more older women who refused to change their name, than younger.
All my kids have chosen their own surname. The older ones chose their dad's. The younger ones, chose mine.
If I got married I'd want to keep my surname. Though that's more to do with the fact that I like my surname. I don't care if she takes my surname or keeps her surname, and I wouldn't mind whose surname any kids adopt (if I had kids, though I don't want any).
If someone wants to keep their family name after marriage then it's not sexist unless they do it because they believe the man should keep their name and the woman should change their name. If the man insists on a name change solely for keeping the family name then that's not sexist. The woman could demand the same thing and the only reason they'd want it is for the family name and not because of any gender roles.
Also what if same-sex marriage becomes legal, or even if same-sex couples have civil partnerships (if name changes are possible with those)? Is it sexist to insist on someone of the same sex to change their name?
The idea is a deeply sexist tradition, whatever excuses people come up with to justify it. It denotes ownership, the passing on of a woman from one man to another, subservience and that the man is the head of the household.
I know that's not how it manifests itself in how people operate within their families now and people do do it because they don't want to be seen as being awkward, different or alternative (and some men and women do believe in male supremacy, still, of course) but that's the indisputable root of the cosy little tradition (as I'm sure everyone knows but some don't feel comfortable acknowledging it for whatever reason).
Well, the overwhelming majority of the population are perfectly happy with the tradition and it's not likely to end anytime soon just because a few militant feminists don't like it.
It wasn't even discussed between my husband and I - I took his name happily. I like being called 'Mrs'. You can view it as ownership, I look at it as belonging to. I'm more than happy that its apparent that I am his wife and he is my husband.
Ownership or belonging, sounds the same to me.
And it's not apparent that any man is married, he doesn't change his title to demonstrate this ownership/belonging
I refused to take my husband's name, as I am not a dog or a slave. I don't get why women do it - it's pretty sad in this day and age that women should be so desperate to end their own identities but maybe it is a generational thing as I know more older women who refused to change their name, than younger.
Yeah it is generational, more and more women now realise that there is a choice.
It wasn't even discussed between my husband and I - I took his name happily. I like being called 'Mrs'. You can view it as ownership, I look at it as belonging to. I'm more than happy that its apparent that I am his wife and he is my husband.
Here here, I didn't think twice about taking my husbands name, and our sons have his name. I don't know any married couples who kept their own names. I'm far from being owned by my husband, we are a partnership and equal.
My surname is quite rare, especially in England.. being a Scottish surname. I'd hate to lose it, it's always a good talking point and with my dad being a police officer, it gets some laughs as well it's Copland, if any of you didn't realise.
My OH and I aren't married but the kids have his surname. I never even considered them having my name, I've always felt that kids should take their father's name.
It wasn't even discussed between my husband and I - I took his name happily. I like being called 'Mrs'. You can view it as ownership, I look at it as belonging to. I'm more than happy that its apparent that I am his wife and he is my husband.
Here here, I didn't think twice about taking my husbands name, and our sons have his name. I don't know any married couples who kept their own names. I'm far from being owned by my husband, we are a partnership and equal.
Same for my wife. It was simply never an issue, she was always going to take my name. I don't know a single married couple where the wife has demanded to keep her own name, or has insisted on the kids having her maiden name!
I do believe its still the norm for women to take their husband's name. But you wouldn't think so from reading DS!
My surname is quite rare, especially in England.. being a Scottish surname. I'd hate to lose it, it's always a good talking point and with my dad being a police officer, it gets some laughs as well it's Copland, if any of you didn't realise.
In the UK there are 618 phone book entries with the surname Copland and approximately 2,691 persons with this name.
Thus, the surname Copland is the 3,214. most frequent name in the UK.
It probably is important to men. It certainly is important to my father and brother. I want my family's name to be passed on through my brother. I'm happy that it doesn't end.... yet. My brother's the only male on my paternal side, a lot of responsibility rests on his shoulders.
Personally, I wouldn't change my name after being married. It has nothing to do with feminism. Professionally I've already established myself and my family's name means a lot to me. If I were to have children, and this is only going to happen in wedlock, they will carry their father's name. I wouldn't double-barrel their names, my surname is ridiculously long on its own.
When my wife and I married she kept her surname. When children came along, they both took her name.
TBH I couldn't care less. I know they're my kids and they call me daddy. That's all that matters to me.
There was never a question of my daughter taking my partners surname. It was something that he wanted and I wasn't bothered by.
It probably helped that I have a foreign surname and people have trouble spelling and pronouncing it. Plus I have the same surname of my father who I don't see and a different one to my mum who I do see.
Just curious to see if any men doesnt deem it important giving their children his surname. Every man I have spoke to said they would insist on naming their child after them but are there any men out therr who doesnt care?
I am not traditional at all and my name is very important to me so if I was ever to get married I would keep my name and any future children would be in my name too. I made the mistake of double barrelling my sons name and am not doing again.
So men is it really important?
To OP : to reverse the question why is it important to you, as you are insisting any children should carry your name only? Why are children "yours" not a shared responsibility between the mother and father?
The practicalities of forms and online records mean that an ever expanding multi-barrelled name is not realistic. So you need a convention - either that the child takes the mother's name or the father's name or that there is no convention and the parents choose which of the names to use.
This particular tradition is highly unlikely to change since there is no real need for change.
The alternative is a population of children with pretentious doubled-barrelled names.
Actually this is exactly the tradition in Spain and many hispanic cultures.
Children have their given name followed by the two first surnames of their parents (as the parents will also have two surnames - the father's is usually first but not always these days). This is their tradition. For day to day uses most people only use their first surname (which avoids the double barrelled situation) but legally they have both.
It seems to be a perfectly fair and reasonable system.
It is worrying the amount of blokes who seem happy for future kids to have their wives name. Though i suspect most are just saying it to be down with the groovy gang. If you were to let your wife dominate on something as fundamental as this then your marriage is going to be one of pain bros. GROW SOME NUTS!
I was talking to my partner about what name I would have once we married, I am quite attached to my surname and I think my name if I took his surname sounds really chavy(some of my friends who I have spoken about it to agree with me, my first name isn't anything chavvy but for some reason with his surname it sounds it). My partner said he would take my surname when we get married if I didn't want to give up my name because he doesn't care(it's his father's name and he hasn't seen his father in over a decade).
In the end though I have decided to double-barrel them(my brother suggested it as one of his friends got married and did the same as he and his wife thought like me they had been known by their separate surnames for so long it would easier) and our future children will get the double-barrelled surname as well.
Same for my wife. It was simply never an issue, she was always going to take my name. I don't know a single married couple where the wife has demanded to keep her own name, or has insisted on the kids having her maiden name!
I do believe its still the norm for women to take their husband's name. But you wouldn't think so from reading DS!
Ds is a hotbed of liberal dreamers imo. I have not once in all my years heard of kids taking their mothers name.
I will make one exception. If a man refuses to commit and marry the mother of his kids then he has no right to demand they take his name.
It is worrying the amount of blokes who seem happy for future kids to have their wives name. Though i suspect most are just saying it to be down with the groovy gang. If you were to let your wife dominate on something as fundamental as this then your marriage is going to be one of pain bros. GROW SOME NUTS!
Why would it worry you?
No one's making you do it, so in what way does it affect you?
Comments
Luckily for me I let the kids use my name and his and slowly, over time, both of them have elected to drop his entirely. Not my choice - their's. So when he sent me an email with a lengthy lecture about not using his name, little did he know they both stopped using it years back.
I suspect it is to justify him not paying out for them - maybe convincing his newfound mates at church the kids aren't his since it came out he wasn't paying a penny for em... Either way he is a man and don't give a toss about his kids having his name.
I refused to take my husband's name, as I am not a dog or a slave. I don't get why women do it - it's pretty sad in this day and age that women should be so desperate to end their own identities but maybe it is a generational thing as I know more older women who refused to change their name, than younger.
All my kids have chosen their own surname. The older ones chose their dad's. The younger ones, chose mine.
It is sexist if the man insists that his wife and children have to take his name then I think you`ll find that it is.
You shouldn`t dismiss what you don`t understand.
If someone wants to keep their family name after marriage then it's not sexist unless they do it because they believe the man should keep their name and the woman should change their name. If the man insists on a name change solely for keeping the family name then that's not sexist. The woman could demand the same thing and the only reason they'd want it is for the family name and not because of any gender roles.
Also what if same-sex marriage becomes legal, or even if same-sex couples have civil partnerships (if name changes are possible with those)? Is it sexist to insist on someone of the same sex to change their name?
While you are entitled to hold that view, what will happen if a partner wants the kids to have his surname?
Can you cook Love ? :rolleyes:
And it's not apparent that any man is married, he doesn't change his title to demonstrate this ownership/belonging Yeah it is generational, more and more women now realise that there is a choice.
It's not an issue for him, he's happy for them to have my name.
Here here, I didn't think twice about taking my husbands name, and our sons have his name. I don't know any married couples who kept their own names. I'm far from being owned by my husband, we are a partnership and equal.
Lol
Same for my wife. It was simply never an issue, she was always going to take my name. I don't know a single married couple where the wife has demanded to keep her own name, or has insisted on the kids having her maiden name!
I do believe its still the norm for women to take their husband's name. But you wouldn't think so from reading DS!
That is rare, my Gran was a Copeland.
In the UK there are 618 phone book entries with the surname Copland and approximately 2,691 persons with this name.
Thus, the surname Copland is the 3,214. most frequent name in the UK.
The Frequency % is 0.004
Hmm... So when two adults with double barrelled names get married, do they have to quadruple-barrel their names?
Personally, I wouldn't change my name after being married. It has nothing to do with feminism. Professionally I've already established myself and my family's name means a lot to me. If I were to have children, and this is only going to happen in wedlock, they will carry their father's name. I wouldn't double-barrel their names, my surname is ridiculously long on its own.
TBH I couldn't care less. I know they're my kids and they call me daddy. That's all that matters to me.
It probably helped that I have a foreign surname and people have trouble spelling and pronouncing it. Plus I have the same surname of my father who I don't see and a different one to my mum who I do see.
To me it is just a name.
To OP : to reverse the question why is it important to you, as you are insisting any children should carry your name only? Why are children "yours" not a shared responsibility between the mother and father?
The practicalities of forms and online records mean that an ever expanding multi-barrelled name is not realistic. So you need a convention - either that the child takes the mother's name or the father's name or that there is no convention and the parents choose which of the names to use.
Actually this is exactly the tradition in Spain and many hispanic cultures.
Children have their given name followed by the two first surnames of their parents (as the parents will also have two surnames - the father's is usually first but not always these days). This is their tradition. For day to day uses most people only use their first surname (which avoids the double barrelled situation) but legally they have both.
It seems to be a perfectly fair and reasonable system.
In the end though I have decided to double-barrel them(my brother suggested it as one of his friends got married and did the same as he and his wife thought like me they had been known by their separate surnames for so long it would easier) and our future children will get the double-barrelled surname as well.
Ds is a hotbed of liberal dreamers imo. I have not once in all my years heard of kids taking their mothers name.
I will make one exception. If a man refuses to commit and marry the mother of his kids then he has no right to demand they take his name.
Why would it worry you?
No one's making you do it, so in what way does it affect you?
We're just left in a mess of multi barrelled surnames because nobody wanted to take the other persons surname.